Daily Archives: March 4, 2014


Did the U.S. Carry Out a Ukrainian Coup? 1

The Real News Network has two interviews that are worth considering together.

The first is Did the U.S. Carry Out a Ukrainian Coup?

PARRY: Well, the United States has been trying to pry Ukraine away from a close relationship with Russia. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said in December to a group of business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion, she said, in helping Ukraine achieve its European aspirations, that is, moving it away from Russia into the E.U. So, obviously, the United States has played a role in trying to achieve this antidemocratic transition. As much as they may call it democratic, overthrowing an elected leader is on its face not democratic.

There’s also the issue of the National Endowment for Democracy and another U.S.-funded political operations. NED, according to its report, has 65 projects underway in Ukraine, including training activists, supporting journalists, organizing business groups, essentially creating a sort of a shadow political structure that could be put in play to destabilize the country. And that’s what we’ve seen here. We saw a destabilization of a country–which had problems, no question, and had leadership that was very flawed. But still, instead of going through a constitutional electoral process, another approach was taken.

And Yanukovych did agree–after the protests turned violent, he agreed to a deal negotiated by the E.U. to advance the elections and to have the police stand down.


The second interview is Is Russian-Ukraine Intervention Illegal?

QUIGLEY: Yeah, I think what Jeffrey said is really key here, namely, that you have a population that is not cohesive, as a result of the fact that the country was cobbled together over a period of time. And that makes it very hard to talk about the sentiment of the people, very substantial sentiment for participation in the European Union, on the theory that, you know, that will make life better. You know, whether it will or not is something that can only be speculated.

 


Whether or not a country is cohesive or fractured, and whether or not we prefer one side or the other, shouldn’t our first principle be to let them figure out how to come to a working agreement among the factions? Do we want some outside country coming in and trying to settle our differences because we can’t seem to overcome our own paralysis? These kinds of divisions are hard for any group to settle. Experience has shown that an outside force doesn’t have a better chance of finding an acceptable solution than do the people directly involved. That is why international law tries to prevent outside forces from intervening in the internal affairs of another country. When will we learn to respect these principles?

With regard to the first interview, does it seem strange to you that an administration that promised a more humble foreign policy than the Bush administration would allow a diplomatic holdover from that administration to involve us in such  arrogant policy? Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is the person to whom I am referring.


Lessons on Meddling in Someone Else’s Politics

I have been trying my darndest not to say anything about this, but it is eating at me.

You may or may not be able to see this Facebook post depending on with whom on Facebook you are friends.  The poster was congratulated by Martha Coakley for work in the Sturbridge Democratic caucus for gaining delegates that support Coakley.

My cryptic response was about a caucus in Charlton:

Sturbridge meddled in the internal politics of Charlton and they didn’t like it. Quelle surprise.

Yes, I admit I was part of the meddlers, and I was surprised.

Our very presence there was an irritant of major proportions. Too bad I have only figured that out now.

I wonder if the delegates that Coakley got in Sturbridge were wiped out by the ones we lost for her in Charlton.

Since at the moment, I am a Grossman supporter, you’d think I might be proud of what we did in Charlton. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very much saddened by what happened.

As my wise mentor BillM has said, “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.”  I wish I had the will power to follow his advice.

By the way, the only value in posting this is to think about changing my remarks to be about the USA (instead of Sturbridge) and Ukraine and Russia (instead of Charlton).  It would go something like the following:

The USA meddled in the internal politics of the Ukraine and the Ukraine citizens of Russian heritage didn’t like it. Quelle surprise!

Or as Tip O’Neill once said,”All politics is local.”

 


Rachel Maddow Obliterates War-Pig GOP Who Want To Attack Russia!

Crooks and Liars has the article Rachel Maddow Obliterates War-Pig GOP Who Want To Attack Russia! (Video).  The video below is the one they use in this article.


I think the better headline is that “Rachel Maddow goes over to the other side.”

Russia does not like US meddling in Ukraine (US does not like Russia meddling in Cuba). Russia has a naval base in Ukraine (US has naval base in Cuba). A government in the Ukraine that is favorable to Russia is overthrown by one favorable to the west (A government in Cuba that is favorable to the US is overthrown by one more favorable to the USSR). Russia invades Crimea in the Ukraine hoping for support from the local population (The US invades the Bay of Pigs in Cuba hoping for support from the local population.)

The only difference I see is that Russia does have support from a large fraction of the local population. This is something that never happened for us in the Bay of Pigs.